If God is Omniscient then Human is not free.

This is truly funny, the quote you posted is self explanatory since Einstein explained what he is talking about. If you can't get that then i can't help you.
Maybe we should rename this thread the "MDL Spiritualists Potpourri" and give out little pink rabbits to all who join the clique

 

I would argue that 99%, if not more, or the thoughts you have built up in your mind are largely inconsequential to others than yourself. Perhaps you have put yourself on a pedestal, to be as relevant as you imply Yeah, I understand you mean collective human endeavor and its benefits to us, sure. But if it is not totally owned by your own mind and applied to it, then it more like organized religion prescribing belief systems to the masses, rather than going through their own 'dark night of the soul' (as St. John of the Cross would say) and experiencing their own reality.

Further, I would not confuse any series of scientific discoveries with a workable philosophy or universal perspective. It would seem science is very far from presenting people with a philosophy at all. Science might argue that is not its job, and I would agree. But I would also have to agree that people who become science-devotees (believing rather than understanding science) are just as religious as their much-maligned deity-oriented brothers and sisters. So you get all these people talking like they know something about the nature of self or life because we know gravity is the curvature of space caused by mass. I may find those thoughts hold relevance to personal experiences I've had, and thus they become part of my total mindset. But I would not claim that the behavior of matter explains the totality of consciousness, which is to say I would not limit myself to the symbolic pondering of such observed phenomenon. You may fill your mind with a million things and try to understand their relationship to each other, yet the totality or meaning of the whole may elude you completely. 'Facts' cannot and will not fill in that gap for you. Models will give you an intellectual overview at best. But they cannot yield direct experiences of those realities. Direct experience of something cannot be transferred through a book. It has to be experienced by yourself. Don't take anyone's word for it. If your mind is locked, use something to jolt you out of it already Some good sacraments (drugs) won't 'alter' your mind, in fact they force a 'standing outside one's self' experience, which is the actual meaning of the Greek word 'ekstasis' (ecstasy). I don't recommend it because that is what caused my mindset, but because I know that such experiences are not different in kind to spiritual experiences, but rather different in degree only.

Like I said before, you cannot equate 'facts' with 'truth'. A fact is not some static, unchangeable truth. It is something someone takes as a basis for building a model. That model, is a belief system. It is not 'true' on its own, unless entertained by a consciousness agreeable to its construct/proportion. So then you have to consider that all people employ the mind to entertain models; they exercise symbolic thinking. Math is symbolic. Intellectual activity is symbolic in nature. You say 'table', it evokes the abstract idea of table, something that fits the form of many actual objects that are tables. That is symbolic thought. There is no way to directly know or experience something with the mind that juggles symbols and organizes them in certain proportions. This is why you can have a depth of perception, even when you entertain thoughts or forms that a scientist may not consider 'factual'. Etc. You may (as you do constantly) remind people how much better your belief system is, and this is exactly why so many people loathe religion today. I'm finding quite a few science devotees to be quite the Pharisee, if you would forgive the image conjured by my symbolically imbued mind

To get back to the God and free will question, then, it may be worth considering some of the things science has indicated, namely that energy cannot escape from the universe, or it would collapse. A black hole can dissolve any form, but the energy cannot escape. So perhaps God (yeah, that concept that keeps popping up through the millenia of human experience) is the one energy, and all the forms in the universe are (relative) units that this energy manifests itself as. If that were so (and should any discussion about God and fate not be at least philosophical?) than perhaps the humans that keep talking about mystical experiences of oneness with the universe and a central being or unity are implying that human consciousness can somehow be aware of the universe at very deep levels, perhaps even at its formless state of pure energy/being/whatness. If so, then 'free will' could denote either totally and entirely conditional will of limited expressions of life and upbringing and mental habit (so yeah, how free is that), or it could mean that the sense of 'freedom' we have is because we are inextricably connected to the universal energy/being/state and are (yes, in 'fact') direct and living expressions of it, and if fully realized we would be free. But what kind of 'you' would that be, the one that completely identifies with the body every waking moment, or the you that knows itself as a you that is not just one form, one locale? Jesus said, "I am one with the Father". Vedic seer says, "Tat tvam asi" (I am That). Are they referring to their body and one location in time-space, or are they saying 'the universal existence is (also) me'? As far as personification of universal realities in deities, like I said before in a different manner, the symbolic mind entertains mental forms deputed with verities/meanings that we know are not those verities themselves. So the God form is not the verity itself, it is the symbolic representation by the mind of the verity that is known. Without mind, form is not necessary. When you dream and wake up, often the feelings of the dream (the abstract meaning, the emotion, etc.) remains but you forget the forms/particulars. Yet the dream conditions your mind when you cannot even remember its form. Whatever you grasp, your mind will convert it to a form. So I agree that the God form says more about the humans that employ it than the God verity itself. Of course it does, because it is the form bound mind that needs it (at any particular stage that that applies to), not the universal verity that would be formless and exists as energy/being directly.

I am not presenting some philosophy as much as I am saying that if you want to ponder God, religion, spirituality, freedom, fate, etc., you have to be willing to ponder what could have been meant by the originators of those concepts, how such concepts occur in different parts of the world and how they compare, and if indeed it would be possible that science has already perceived some things (nature of energy and matter in the universe, etc.) that people have experienced through exploration of consciousness throughout the ages. If you're going to approach it like, "well, this is what I think of religion so that's it" you are only pretending to have a discussion.

 

What i have gotten is further confirmation that you consistently use snark when you are in an uncomfortable situation .. Sad for you

 

What I have gotten is that you don't understand anything you post. case closed.

 

That's a lot of blabbering and maybes to finally conclude that you know nothing. When you finally know something factual then I might bother replying to you properly. You can also go look up "Religion as a tool of control". And have a look at the history of indoctrination into Christianity of all those people enslaved during the Atlantic Slave Trade during the 16-19th centuries.

 

Are you sure that statement is accurate ? I mean you chose to edit it once, maybe there is something you left out that would help you better make your point .. To be on the safe side I will wait until I am sure i have it all that I may respond in the same thoughtful manner ..

 

When I finally know something... OK, let me know what you know then, and I will reply to your knowledge and we will see how much you really know. If you do know so many things, you have been keeping it from us -- I've been reading this thread carefully

So after all I say about origination of religion and the spiritual impulse, you make some lazy comment about 'Christianity enslaved people'. That's not just lazy, that's insulting. Like I said, I would not put a Francesco on the same level as any pope or exponent of organized religion. Let alone people of other traditions I have mentioned. Clearly, your conception of 'Christianity' is just that, yours. Again, as I mentioned before (if you even care to read) I said organized religion's track record 'hasn't exactly been a walk in the park'. Also, we were not only talking about one particular religion, but religion in general. Either way your comments are shallow and don't contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. The way I see it is 1) there is the spiritual impulse in the individual 2) people who are of the following mindset institutionalize a belief system based on the utterances of the person who had his/her spiritual experiences. It's the same with science, really, there is 1) scientists who are on the cutting edge of science 2) people who think they understand science but have in fact taken snippets to mold their own quasi-scientific belief system. Indoctrination is anywhere, Dawkins is as much a priest to me as the Pharisee in the temple. A better informed priest, yes, but a priest all the same, fed by the pride of 'saving' people from superstition while he jumbles thoughts in his mind that are inconsequential to the consciousness that transcends them.

 

Given what you post I won't be surprised if you ask me to read my tea leaves or tell me that I might win the lottery if I dream of pink bunnies. I am not getting into a religious argument. I think religion on the whole is pure utter bull****, been there done that and not worth it. If you believe in pink bunnies and what not good for you, I'm off for the weekend soon and you have a good weekend too.

 

I know, we know, for a very long time we've known. Unlike you, we actually read posts Question is, why troll this thread like a stalker? Do you find any perverse pleasure in disrupting discussion you have clearly stated you want no part of? WHY ARE YOU HERE?

 

@R29k give some thought to the unveiling of R30k while you are gone .. A good starting point may be what you have in your sig

Mark Twain: We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess

Winnie the Pooh: Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known
​

 

And again the scientific method is mixed up to mean the results it gives.

1) Observation 2) Theory 3) Verification.

That's the method. I don't see any of 3) here. Everone seems to be stuck at 2). Science is measured purely by its results here - by people typing on _computers_ on the _Internet_ nonetheless - and since it doesn't explain what they want, all kinds of stuff is made up while kindly ignoring to do any verification. And on top of it, this way of thought is compared to the leaps of thought required to come up with a whole new theory in science.

It's as if people want the same recognition as Einstein without all the work - by conveniently uttering some thoughts from their armchair.

 

Let's see if we can sort this out .. This is my post (in full) which ends in a question .. Maybe you can answer my question first and then w e will get to yours ..

"If we were able to say that our bodies are instruments capable of measurements/consciousness that Science has not yet been able to define without some outrage from the scientifically minded .. A dialogue could emerge between the two groups where thoughts are not so deeply entrenched .. The Scientific community surely has approached discovery in this manner prior to revelation/break through have they not ?"

Your question "So What is this “consciousness” that cannot by definition be made up of cells and atoms?"
I don't believe I have stated or implied anywhere that consciousness should not include "cells and atoms" in an attempt to define it ..
My perception is there is more to it than that ..

Example : A person stands at the base of a set of stairs which are of equal distance in rise as the person attempts to go up the stairs it can be said that the body is conscious (at some level) of the rise of the next step because it lifts the foot to adequately clear the rise of step with a precision that one might conclude measurement/consciousness .. This is not a series of intellectual thoughts like 'the rise is 6 inches' otherwise when the body is on a set of steps in a country where the metric system was used it might stumble Science at least in my mind can not adequately explain this type of consciousness ..

It is my perception that Science has concerned itself more so with the cells and atoms rather than mapping/defining the spaces in between whether it is on a macro or micro perspective .. Now "dark matter" brings us closer to a possible view that there is no separation .. Incidentally, that state of consciousness/awareness has been around a very long time as has been reported by peoples direct experiences of it ..

Sid, with all the respect and kindness I can bring to this moment I would say the following .. The continued use of the phrase "You people" only leads to bigotry and if it is acceptable to use these words amongst your peers I implore you to be the one voice of reason amongst your peers to consciously change to avert the intended or unintended consequences of it ..

 

@TCM I am curious how you came to this conclusion
"It's as if people want the same recognition as Einstein without all the work - by conveniently uttering some thoughts from their armchair. "

 

Hehe, how are you so different, kind sir? By quoting the methods of others you are somehow elevated to the status of original genius -- or how else would you venture to lecture anyone? Remember this thread is a philosophical one by nature, because as you will agree science or logic has not effectively concluded the existence of God (nor has it effectively concluded many other things ). So one question could be: is spiritual/mystical experience a reality? To verify this, you would have to experience things personally. Someone else can't do it for you. It's not like you're going to borrow someone else's entire consciousness. If it would indeed be possible to directly understand/experience certain universal realities, the order may actually be: 1) direct perception/realization 2) converting experience to forms of symbolic mind (including scientific theoretic endeavor) 3) verifying findings physically and otherwise.

By the way, Einstein's thinking methods often employed intuition (and was many times actually much closer to the method I describe above, than it is to yours), and only later would he work out the theory practically. He had many 'hunches' about the nature of the universe, that in no way he had proof for nor were they based on 1+1=2. Sometimes he couldn't even figure out the math of what he intuited himself and had others help him crystallize the intuition into theoretical points. If he had staunchly followed the method you prescribe above, he would have missed those insights. Intuition played a crucial role in Einstein's theories and he acknowledged this many times. If there is any confusion about the 'God' Einstein often mentions, it is clear that Einstein's God is the one of Deism rather than Theism, it is the God of philosophy rather than religion, but I think it would be more fair to say that his 'God' concept included elements of Deism and Mysticism.

And unlike some people here, Einstein actually sat down and talked with people like Rabindranath Tagore about the nature of God and Universe, in a civilized and respectful manner.

 

Ive been speaking to my wife about this thhread, her reply was interesting.

 

Not if these losers are not interested in personal growth or change from the inside out ...lol

If we're discussing healing or knowing from within then in that whether we're dealing with resonating with God or the teacher that is helping us resonate with God only can genuine participation be the spiritual path not constant opposition and no heed!

There is no debate here as it's useless to try to describe things from an intellectual pursuit for true knowing God is dependent on the individual to want to know himself as spirit or God! A desire!

This is reliant on the individual to submit his will to the will of God. To be one with the present or God

There is no analyzing or thinking involved, it a sacred endeavor to heal and be in sync with the Creator/God

All this trying to convince these losers about God or healing is a f'n a waste of time. They without a doubt do not give a f@#k about anything I or you or any spiritually inclined person might relay

Seriously what is any spiritually inclined person here got to prove to these unconscious atheists extreme

Nothing and it is there choice to be limited and to worship the limited. These are not your friends are they? You can't be responsible for their spiritual enlightenment can you?

Why help those with eye's and ears close spiritually speaking?

Of what benefit does it give you or they?

None, they keeping invalidating spiritual experience and indigenous wisdom over and over and over and over infinately...lol

They will never get it! Especially cause their science/partial mind can't receive spirit in their linear programming of which they are quite content in remaining oblivious in their partial science without it's UFT (Unified field theory)

What do you, RR, Para, MJ hope to accomplish...lol

Giving to them can't heal you, only you can heal you and trying to give to those who can't receive just enables them to be vampires of your soul!

Sometimes you got to make separations from what sucks or who can't receive enlightenment and in that you receive healing and further insight and cosmic recall or rememberance

Sometimes you got to let losers be losers

Stop healing the dark side, let it collapse on itself so it can learn the hard way that is has separated from God and their partial science is a perfect reflection of that "separation" or "duality" in a "Uni" verse

The destiny and origin are the same! Hence the will throughout all life is Gods will within all creatures and through falls of consciousnesses like earth and the sun is experiencing till it realigns itself with the galactic frequencies incarnated and embodied by the Maya. And those frequencies are what makes up present time or where life comes from and returns. But people or creatures must resonate with these frequencies not think about them like your wife thought about her response!

But Para, Yen, MJ try to describe mechanics of the soul/spirit/God and no one is listening but them

"Feel the force luke"

@MDL

Correct descriptions are words like Harmony and Resonance, for what connects all is harmonic throughout all life in an instantaneous way

The Maya are known at diviners of harmony, which implies how they saw things to be at their root in harmony. Technicians of time/space!

So what is faster or before instantaneous?

Intention?

What is at the root of instantaneous?

The velocity of time (timelessness) is instantaneously infinite

The spiritually inclined people are not stupid in pushing the envelop of describing the universe but as Einstein stated

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

For he knew intuitively that everything is of the mind

That there was something greater that science couldn't prove!